The SBK foundation is about breast cancer: prevention, treatment, awareness, support, the whole shebang. Or at least I hope it is, and with the millions of pink products it sells every year telling people it is, it had better be. It has never presented itself in any meaningful way as being about anything else.
If you are a private group in this country, you have every right to do or not do, support or not support whatever you please. However, if you are seeking public donation, there is not only social understanding but legal precedent that it had better go to what you say it does, and that any particular criteria on that are listed on the packet. This also goes for who you affiliate with and who you don’t and why.
Let’s use PETA as an example (all following are hypothetical and not a statement on PETA’s actual policies, which I don’t know). Fairly extreme vegan and animal rights group:
FUNDING - A. They fund a no-kill shelter. Expected, in line with stated principles. Ok. B. They fund AIDS awareness in Africa. May still be a noble cause, but regardless, it is not what people expect when funding PETA and is not an ok use of the money.
AFFILIATION - A. They refuse to partner with the NFL because they allow Michael Vick to play and sponsor many meat and leather items. Ok. B. They refuse to partner with the SPCA. More surprising on the surface, but they euthanise animals, so it still makes sense and is ok. C. They refuse to partner with the National Vegan Lifestyle Initiative because one of the board members is a religion they dislike. Not ok, and having nothing to do with whether the religion is good or bad or the board members have a right to religious opinion. It’s that PETA has not presented itself as an organization where that would be a criteria, unlike if they were CHRISTIANS for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, in which case it WOULD be expected and ok.
Which brings us to SBK and PP. The issue here, for all the usual screaming and pictures of dead babies that always accompany any mention of the subject, is not abortion or birth control. It is whether SBK funding PP - which also supplies thousands of breast cancer screenings - is B in the first category, and whether defunding it is C in the second.
Several people have argued - and whatever your position on choice, it is a fair argument - that SBK should not fund PP because they donate for breast cancer and breast cancer alone, not general women’s health or reproductive issues, and while PP does cancer screenings, that is not their primary function. Others have said the defunding is wrong because they DO offer breast cancer screenings and they feel the decision was made based on personal political views of SBK leadership regarding non-cancer issues. BOTH sides,abortion aside, have a good point.
The solution : earmark that all SBK funds given to PP be used for cancer screenings and ONLY cancer screenings. No, it doesn’t please the anti-choice groups who want to see PP eliminated, but SBK is not a women’s health or reproductive rights platform, and in this situation, nor does it have a clearly public stance on the matter (in which case they would STILL be within their rights to withdraw funding) so it is the right choice in this situation.
Tl;Dr: This ain’t about uteruses, it’s about boobs and appropriate conduct of a non-profit, so everyone please shut up about THE BABIES and THE RIGHTS.
